|
|
California v. American Stores, 492 U.S. 1301 (1989)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
California v. American Stores, 492 U.S. 1301 (1989)
California v. American Stores Company No. A-151 (89-258) Decided Aug. 22, 1989 492 U.S. 1301
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
The request of applicant, the State of California, for a stay of the Court of Appeals’ mandate is granted, pending disposition of its petition for a writ of certiorari and conditioned upon the posting of a bond with the Clerk of the District Court. The State, through its attorney general on behalf of himself and as parens patriae, filed in the District Court an action as a private plaintiff to enjoin the merger of respondents, the largest and fourth largest retail grocery chains in the State, contending that the merger would lessen competition in the relevant market in violation of the Clayton and Sherman Acts and state law. The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered respondents to operate independently and to refrain from merging or integrating their assets and businesses during the pendency of the action. The Court of Appeals remanded, finding, inter alia, that the order enjoining respondents from integrating their operations amounted to indirect divestiture, a remedy not available to private plaintiffs under the Clayton Act. However, it granted a stay of its mandate to allow the State to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The District Court conditioned the stay on the posting of a bond. The State declined to post the bond, and the Court of Appeals vacated its stay and ordered issuance of the mandate. The State has set forth sufficient reasons for granting a stay. It has made an adequate showing of irreparable injury, since other appropriate injunctive relief may be inadequate to remedy the injury. There is also a reasonable probability that the petition will be granted, given the conflict among the lower courts on the important and recurring issue whether divestiture constitutes injunctive relief within the meaning of the Clayton Act and the need for uniform enforcement of federal antitrust laws. Moreover, the fact that the weight of academic authority favors a reading of the Act that would permit divestiture as a remedy in private actions suggests that there is at least a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the decision below. Finally, the equities favor the State, since the harm of a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market outweighs the harm that respondents may suffer as the result of the stay.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," California v. American Stores, 492 U.S. 1301 (1989) in 492 U.S. 1301 492 U.S. 1302. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R74L2V59AZVIHFJ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." California v. American Stores, 492 U.S. 1301 (1989), in 492 U.S. 1301, page 492 U.S. 1302. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R74L2V59AZVIHFJ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in California v. American Stores, 492 U.S. 1301 (1989). cited in 1989, 492 U.S. 1301, pp.492 U.S. 1302. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R74L2V59AZVIHFJ.
|